---

when i see it, i beleive it!

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

it's a great way to show we need to do something without forcing it or making it sound like a political view

-------
-Whiskey Tango Foxtrot-
metalhealthpatient is my lover::Gatitax is my Sex Goddess

---

Alot of things people are trying to pass off as Global warming, have had certain explainations. I do believe that Global Warming, manmade, is causing extreme problems, but what we also have to remember is that we have evolved through thousands of years in technological advances, all in the past 108 years. Just because things are happening NOW doesn't mean they haven't happened before. Humans have become so attached to the idea of preserving the world, that we soon begin to blame everything on ourselves.

---

QFT

-------
-Whiskey Tango Foxtrot-
metalhealthpatient is my lover::Gatitax is my Sex Goddess

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

-------
There's no present. There's only the immediate future and the recent past.
 - George Carlin

1998 was an unusually hot year as it featured the strongest El Nino of the century. In fact, from Jan to May, 2007 is tied with 1998 as hottest year on record. The WMO reported in August that January and April 2007 were the hottest on record.

However, when determining trends, you don't pick one month or year out of isolation - particularly if that year features a short term weather anomaly like El Nino. By this method, based on the fact that 2005 was .17°C hotter than 2000, you could conclude that the rate of global warming doubled from 2000 to 2005.

When considering long term climate trends, you need to filter out short term weather anomalies like El Nino or volcanic eruptions - an easy way is to plot a 5 year average. This shows the trend hasn't reversed at all.

While a 5 year average is visually compelling, a more rigorous statistical method to determine any trend is to apply a line of best fit to the data.

In this case, a line of best fit calculates the temperature trend is 0.16°C per decade from 1998 until July 2007. This is a close match to the temperature trend over the last 30 years (0.15°C from 1975 to 2007). So even starting from 1998, we find the planet is still warming at the same rate.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

-------
Massive, epic adventure, multi-coloured, multi-layered.
Sort of two/three dimensional Wizard of Oz for the future.

with the main points being:

---

1) Is this the first time in the history of Earth that the climate has changed? I did not know that global climate was a stagnant equilibrium...  

2) No one wants to destroy the world, but some things can not be changed or undone. We will never come to a level of existence here where there is not some adverse effect to the environment. We are a species that changes its environment based on ITS needs, not one that adapts to the changing environment.

As long as we exist as we do --naturally-- nature will be subject to change.

---

and

Quote: from norock at 4:44 pm on Mar. 18, 2008

---

Quote: from nigeltheoutlaw at 3:54 pm on Mar. 18, 2008

---

I understand your reasoning. The Earth does go through natural changes in climate, we are just speeding it up from 20,000 years to half a century and making it more severe.  

---

The Younger Dryas ended about 12,000 years ago,

The difference between ice ages is not constant, nor is the variance of climate change per dynamic period.  

Where have you gotten this "half a century" notion?

The first ice age is dated at 2400-2100 million years ago, the next at 800-635 million years, the next at 450-420 million years, and the fourth was at 360-260 million years.
the difference between ice ages is then seen as:
1300 million years
185 million years
60 million years    

our current ice age [we are considered in an ice age due to the glaciation of the north and south poles] began around 3 million years ago and the temperature of the sea and terra relative temperatures has fluctuated on 41,000 and then "recently" 100,000 year intervals.

It should be noted that we are in an interglacial period, [a warm interval within an ice age] that began sometime between 12 -15 thousand years ago.  

It is of no surprise, then, that the climate is "warming up" as we are in a time of climate change between glacial intervals.

---

We probably can not reverse the damage we have already done to the planet, but if we stop destroying it, it will repair itself. Of course we will always affect our environment, but we can minimize the damage that we do. I'm not worried about US adapting to the changing climate. We will be fine, it's the species that we rely on for food and resources that won't be able to adapt, and that will make us not fine.  

---

True, we may have done some damage to the overall homeostasis that nature tries to maintain, but to say that we are the cause of a major global climate change.  

That argument is --in my opinion-- one for the superstitious and the cynical.  

---

You seem very reasonable, I hope that you will change your mind.

---

My stance on this subject will not change, however that is not to say that I do not think that we --as responsible and evolved beings-- should not take care in caring for our habitat. Simply that I do not believe that we are the cause of any MAJOR global climate change.

Taking care of the planet should not be seen as recompense for a mistake, for what would happen --then-- if we were to "fix" the damage done? The care would once again be lost. We should be taking care of the planet simply because it is the sensible and right thing to do.

---

also

Quote: from norock at 5:13 pm on Mar. 18, 2008

---

You act as though we are at some epoch of both irreversible and unmatched climate change.  

It didn't load before, but here it is again. note the continuous and drastic spikes in CO2 levels.

Yes, in the past couple centuries, there has been a major spike in CO2 levels, however this is not a single occurrence.

the change has went from about 280 ppm to 380 ppm a 100ppm change.

prior to that there were 3-4 periods of changes between 70-100 ppm, quite comparable.  

Nothing outside of de-industrialization will lower the CO2 levels of our planet [in fact, most of the spike was due to the industrial revolution and the time prior and subsequent in which coal and copious amounts of fossil fuels were burned, as of late, the spike has started to level out]

All this means is that with our current level of CO2 output the level of transition can no longer be seen as around 230 ppm, as more CO2 has been introduced than there currently was before our existence. It must be risen to account for the addition of the extra CO2. surely you are not under the impression that our CO2 level output is similar or even comparable to that of a century ago?  

---

Finally, an afterthought.
Quote: from norock at 5:35 pm on Mar. 18, 2008

---

wrong, though clean fuels will lessen the CO2 output increase, it will not lower the overall atmospheric CO2 content; that has already risen.

I admit that helping the environment is a good thing, but you will never stop GCC nor will we lessen it to a point that was comparable to pre-industrialization levels. To think that that is possible is silly.

---